Public utilities - CSIR · 2018-10-30 · PUBLIC UTILITIES The purpose of this sub-chapter is to describe guidelines for the planning of public utilities. Utilities are, for the purposes

Public utilities

Chapter 5.7

5.7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PUBLIC UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

FOCUS AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Utilities: A means to an end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Site- and community-specific characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

QUALITATIVE GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Hierarchy of collective utility points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Planning of utilities to optimise fulfilment of entrepreneurial, social, recreation and other needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

QUANTITATIVE GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Collective utility points primarily serving lower-order collective public utility points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Thresholds and time and distance standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Planning, space and engineering considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Upgrades, operation and maintenance, links, and detailed design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Collective utility points primarily serving higher-order collective utility points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

THE GUIDELINES - A CAUTIONARY REMARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

i

GUIDELINES FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENT PLANNING AND DESIGN

Public utilities Chapter 5.7

ii


Chapter 5.7 Public utilities

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.7.1 Quantitative guidelines for lower-order public collective utility points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.7.1 Conceptual diagram of key spatial relationships relating to collective utilities withingreenfield projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Figure 5.7.2 Conceptual diagram of key spatial relationships relating to collective utilities within upgrade projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

PUBLIC UTILITIES

The purpose of this sub-chapter is to describeguidelines for the planning of public utilities. Utilitiesare, for the purposes of this sub-chapter, defined asengineering services including water, sanitation, roads,stormwater drainage, energy supply, solid-wasteremoval, communications in the form of telephones,and postal collection and delivery.

Collective utilities and residential utilities are definedas follows:

• Collective services (utilities) are those servicesconsumed off-site, to satisfy either community ordomestic service needs. Community service needsrelate to movement, drainage, public safety,outdoor manufacturing, market trading and socialinteraction. In the case of domestic needs, theservice is transported to the household site forconsumption within the dwelling or on the site. Inthe case of community needs the service is usedwithin the public environment. Collective servicesinclude water supply in the form of publicstandpipes, sanitation in the form of public toilets,roads and stormwater drainage, energy supply inthe form of metered electricity dispensers in publicmarkets, the lighting of public places (includingstreet lighting), solid waste removal in the form ofrubbish collection points, and communications inthe form of public telephones and post-collectionpoints.

• Residential services (utilities) are those servicesconsumed on-site, to satisfy domestic householdservice needs. The service is used either in theindividual dwelling, or on the site. Residentialservices include water supply in the form of houseor yard taps, sanitation in the form of in-house orout-house toilets, energy supply in the form ofelectricity or gas, solid waste removal in the formof kerbside rubbish collection, and communicationsin the form of private telephones and postaldelivery (Behrens and Watson 1996, p 81).

Many forms of collective utilities are described in theavailable literature. But, invariably, these are designedand built for single utilities, e.g. as water points,communal ablution blocks, or as post-delivery points.The purpose of this sub-chapter is to go beyond thesesingle-utility views, and show how multi-utilitycollective points can provide convenience, beattractive in their own right, and go a long way toresolving the health threats presented by the litter,poor drainage and physical danger so prevalent incommunities, especially where large numbers ofpeople gather every day (e.g. taxi ranks and informalmarkets).

FOCUS AREAS

The sub-chapter has four focus areas, as follows:

• Utilities in settlements are only a means to an end.

• The provision of utilities cannot be divorced fromsite-specific and community-specific characteristics.

• Link and internal infrastructure (utility) provision,the process of settlement formation, and theplanning and design of collective utility systems.

• The processes of planning and design,construction, operation and maintenance, and theupgrading and eventual replacement of utilitysystems.

Utilities: A means to an end

Utilities in settlements, whether collective or tohouseholds, are only a means to an end. The “end”can be variously defined but it certainly includes, forthe households living in that settlement, greaterhealth and safety and greater access to income-earning opportunities and amenities. Understandingof this is essential in

• addressing the end by the most appropriate means(which may not be an engineering service, buteducation, or institutional change);

• integrating the utility with other means to thesame end; and

• selecting levels of service and standards.

The decision to provide utilities in a settlement, andwhat utilities, how and when, must be part of anintegrated decision-making and (particularly)prioritisation process; then the investment in a utilitymust be part of a package of interventions.

Site- and community-specificcharacteristics

The provision of utilities, whether collective or tohouseholds, cannot be divorced from site-specificcharacteristics (e.g. topography) or from community-specific characteristics (e.g. institutional structure,affordability). For example, one community may haveno need for collective utilities, whereas another may beunable to afford (in the financial sense) anything butcollective services.

No one should have difficulty with the concept thatsite-specific characteristics such as topography arefundamental to the provision of utilities. It may,however, be of value to consider why and howcommunity-specific characteristics would affect theprovision of utilities. For example, the assumption

1



2



that certain health- and safety-related ends will beachieved if certain levels of service of utilityinfrastructure are provided, and that, ifcomplementary services are also provided, it willconstitute a sufficient holistic package of health andsafety, might be true for more affluent South Africans.

The assumptions are, however, probably not true forthe less affluent. In a total public sector budget forhealth and safety services, for example, too muchemphasis on only one aspect (say, water andsanitation) could - for the less affluent - reduce theresources available for other services. There is anevident need for a holistic view of the range of urbanservices (including utilities) before decisions are madeon basic need levels, and before investments are made.

Linkages

This focus is on the relationship between link andinternal infrastructure (utility) provision on the onehand and the process of settlement formation on theother, as well as on the planning and design ofcollective public utility systems.

These links, together with the fourth focus area, lie atthe heart of this sub-chapter. These two foci leaddirectly to the development of appropriate guidelineson: (1) the integration of issues relating to theprovision of utility infrastructure, and issues relating toland-use planning and settlement formation; and (2)the planning and design of collective public utilitysystems - indicating key functional interrelationshipswith other planned elements.

Process

The focus concerns the process of planning and design,the construction, operation and maintenance process,and the upgrading and eventual replacement of utilitysystems, whether collective or to households.

It must be noted that selection of utilities and theirlevels of service, and the planning and design of theselected utilities, are, wittingly or (often) unwittingly,made in the context of a set of planning, design,construction, operation, maintenance and upgradingassumptions. These assumptions relate to the followingquestions:

• How will the utility, its level of service, and thechosen technology suit conditions expected inpractice? Examples of these conditions are

- geotechnical and groundwater conditions;- type of housing and its density; and- frequency of use of the utility (for example: how

many persons per utility, and how much of eachday are they using the utility?).

• How will the utility be constructed (i.e.workmanship)?

• How will the utility be operated and maintained?

- by the individual users; or- by the corporate agency (community, NGO,

private company, local government)?

• Other elements upon which the success ofalternatives is dependent (principally, assumptionsas to institutional capacity, enforcement ofregulation, monitoring of use, adequacy of fundingfor operation and maintenance, and so on).

• What complementary services are required? Forexample, if a collective water service is provided,will sanitation also be provided, or at least a meansof dealing with sullage, and vice versa?

It must further be noted that the (majority) reportedexperience of operation of collective utilities in SouthAfrica is that incorrect use of these facilities, abuse andvandalism are widespread; also that maintenanceoften ranges from insufficient to non-existent. Thisshould heavily influence design and constructiondecisions, and should also require that the process ofcollective utility provision, including that of utilitymanagement, be done with greater care.

QUALITATIVE GUIDELINES

Hierarchy of collective utility points

A hierarchy of collective utility points ranges over acontinuum from

• lower-order collective utility points withinprimarily residential areas, mostly used on single-purpose trips from the house to the utility pointand back; to

• higher-order collective utility points at publicgathering points such as at modal interchanges,public markets or community centres, often usedon the way to or from home or to (in addition topatronising the utility point) work, school,recreation, shopping or some other destination(s).

In practice, it is found that the following differ greatlyfrom the one end of the hierarchy to the other:

• thresholds and catchments;

• space standards;

• numbers of users at any one time;

• distribution of use through the day and throughthe week; and

• the type of utility needed, and the combinations ofthese with each other and with other facilities.

As an example, consider the lowest-order end of thehierarchy. The great majority of the usership of afacility in a residential area is often that residentwithin a catchment defined by a walking distancewithin (depending on the facility) a number ofminutes of the facility. If the population within thatwalking distance is large enough (i.e. above thethreshold), the facility is potentially sustainable.However, the usership of a facility at a publicgathering point - for example a modal interchange - isless dependent on the walking distance to that facility,and thus on its catchment, than it is dependent on thenumbers of people who change modes at thatinterchange, the attractiveness of other facilities (e.g.the market) there, and so on. An example at thehigher-order end of the hierarchy would be a modalinterchange at a major road intersection at the edgeof an urban area - few people have their homes closeby, but many people spend time there waiting fortransport - and thus need and would probably makeuse of the utilities there.

A significant implication of Chapters 2 and 3 is that, asnew settlements are planned and existing settlementsare grown in terms of these concepts of settlementformation, land uses will mix to a far greater degreethan at present. Given that, there will be more publicgathering points at lower levels and thus more needfor collective utility points that serve both residencesand public gathering.

Where a full range of residential utilities cannot forvarious reasons (of which affordability is often one) besupplied to each residential site, it may be worthwhileto supply some of these at an accessible, collectivepoint. If these utilities could also satisfy the collectiveneeds of a taxi rank or a market, that would be moreefficient - but such a situation would be the exception.However, it is very likely that, at even a lower-ordercollective utility point, a couple of small entrepreneurswill set up - selling food, or providing a repair service,for example. This emphasises both the hierarchicalnature of the demand for utilities and the need toprovide a hierarchy of collective utility points.

The design of any collective utility point will besimplified by an assessment of the design demandseparately by the extent to which it concerns bothlower-order and higher-order collective utilitydemand, and then by their aggregation. Thisdistinction is important in terms of design elementssuch as the location and utility mix of the collectivepoint. Thus the following section deals primarily withlower-order collective public utility points, and thesection after that with higher-order collective utilitypoints.

Planning of utilities to optimisefulfilment of entrepreneurial, social,recreation and other needs

In Chapter 3, the planning of settlements to createfavourable spatial conditions for entrepreneurs hasbeen laid down as a primary determinant ofsettlement-planning. In addition, how collectiveutility points can be located to reinforce theseentrepreneurial conditions and maximise their accessto users has been specified as a very significantcontribution that this sub-chapter can make tosuccessful settlement-planning. However, howcollective utility points can be located to support andenhance social, recreation, education, safety and otherneeds in a settlement, is of equal importance.

Several mutually reinforcing means are describedwhereby conditions can be optimised to fulfilentrepreneurial, social, recreation, education, safetyand other needs. Principally these are

(1) concentrate local through-movement on stop-startactivity routes;

(2) provide accessible public spaces which createopportunities for collective activity;

(3) incorporate public markets as an element ofessential public infrastructure;

(4) cluster facilities (including utilities) to enableresource-sharing;

(5) integrate open spaces with utility services; and

(6) align trunk utilities to important routes.

(1) - (4) Location of collective utility pointsto maximise their access to users

Collective utility points (e.g. public standpipes,public telephones, post collection points, solid-waste collection points, metered electricitydispensers, and public toilets) should be clusteredaround public markets and hard open spaces, tocreate favourable small-scale manufacturing andtrading conditions. Also, in cases where theseutilities perform residential functions as well, theyenable local residents to satisfy several needs in asingle trip. The clustering of utility points providesthe utilities necessary for small trading operations,and attracts potential consumers to specific pointsin space.

Public facilities are intensively used by largenumbers of people, and, through the creation of“load centres”, can generate a large demand forutilities. As a result they can be used to “pull”service mains economically through a settlement,with facilities and the public spaces they abut,

3



4



accommodating a range of utilities often notsupplied to individual residential erven (e.g.telecommunications, solid-waste collection, postaldelivery).

Settlement layouts should locate public marketsand squares, and their associated collective utilitypoints, to ensure that all households haveconvenient pedestrian as well as motorist accessand that a single trip can satisfy a number of needs- entrepreneurial, social, recreation, education,safety and other needs. In order to achieve this,planners and engineers require an understandingof the range and threshold requirements of, andfunctional relationships between, the differentcollective utilities.

(5) Integrate open spaces with utilities

The design of public open space networks should beintegrated with the design of utility infrastructurenetworks. In particular, interconnected soft openspace systems should be integrated with majorstormwater management systems (i.e. openstormwater channels, retention and retardingponds, etc.). Open spaces and clusters of playingfields, should take up low-lying land subject toperiodic flooding, acting as overflow facilities in theevent of severe storms, while stormwater outfalland storage facilities should be used as landscapingfeatures within the amenity network (See Sub-chapter 5.4 on Soft Open Spaces).

(6) Align trunk utilities to important routes

Where possible, trunk utility lines should bealigned to more intensive movement routes whichlink public facilities and non-residential land uses,and electricity sub-stations (which transform high-voltage current into low-voltage current for thepurpose of residential reticulation) should belocated close to public facility clusters (i.e. “loadcentres”).

In this way, full water, sewerage, electricity, publiclighting and telecommunication connections can,from the beginning of the infrastructure-provisionprocess, be made to commercial services, small-scale manufacturers, and public facilities likeschools and health clinics. Similarly, in cases whereadequate road surfacing is not affordable on allroads, public facilities should be connected by anetwork of surfaced roads to ensure the effectiveprovision of regular road-based services.

In situations where water reticulation to residentialareas is not designed for additional fire fightingflows, water supply ring mains with greatestcapacity and pressure should, where possible, bealigned to intensive activity routes. This will ensurethat, at the very least, public facilities like schoolsand community centres are adequately covered byfire hydrants and associated fire-fighting services(See Sub-chapter 5.8.3 on Fire Considerations).

Figure 5.7.1 and Figure 5.7.2 illustrate the above.

Figure 5.7.1 Conceptual diagram of key spatial relationships relating to collective utilities within greenfieldprojects

Source: Behrens and Watson 1996, p 103

They indicate the spatial relationships of utilitieswithin, respectively, a “greenfield” and an“upgrade” project.

QUANTITATIVE GUIDELINES

Collective utility points primarily servinglower-order collective public utilitypoints

Densities, alternatives and hierarchies

The effect of two contextual factors needs to bemade clear in respect of any standards for lower-order collective public utility points.

The density of the area

For example, in densely populated areas, 15-25dwelling units per standpipe (a rough guide of thethreshhold for a standpipe) can be achieved byplacing a standpipe at the end of each street, andat a maximum distance of 100 m. In more sparselypopulated areas, a walking distance greater thanthe Redistribution and Development Programmestandard of 250 m should not be exceeded, almostirrespective of the threshhold. The walkingdistance will probably prevail over threshholdcriteria.

The availability of residential utilities

For example, in an area which (say) lacks a door-to-door postal service and solid-waste collectionservice, but where residential sites each have a toiletand a standpipe, the need for collective toilets andstandpipes will be much lower than where these arenot provided on residential sites. However, at aresidential area collective utility point where saysolid waste, postal and telephone facilities areprovided, collective toilets and standpipes willnevertheless have to be provided for the users ofthe telephones, nearby entrepreneurs and theircustomers, and passers-by.

Table 5.7.1 provides only a rough guideline, and thecontext of the specific area being served must beinvestigated, particularly with respect to densitiesand alternative options to the collective utility.

In addition, the place on the hierarchy of thecollective points being designed must be borne inmind. For example, if a lowest-order point, toserve 20 dwelling units, includes one waterstandpipe, a second-order point centred aroundsolid-waste collection, public telephones and postboxes could adequately also have only onestandpipe. Although the other utilities here maybe serving 200 or more dwelling units, thestandpipe is not also serving 200 dwelling units,

5



Figure 5.7.2 Conceptual diagram of key spatial relationships relating to collective utilities within upgradeprojects

Source: Behrens and Watson 1996, p 111

6



but is the standpipe for only its immediate area of20 dwelling units - and for passers-by, etc, asdescribed above.

Thresholds and time and distancestandards

Design decisions regarding public utilities relatemainly to (i) the population catchments they serve(conversely the thresholds that they require in order tobe sustainable), and hence the numbers of each facilityrequired in any given area, and (ii) the distance thatuser households have to travel to gain access to them.

The specific demographic and socio-economic profileof each community should be used to plan and provideits public utilities, as indeed it should be used for anyother public facilities, especially those servingprimarily residential areas. For example, it is possiblethat a greater proportion of investment would berequired for pre-school facilities within the first fiveyears of a new settlement than for secondary andtertiary education.

Behrens and Watson (1996) point out that standardsfor individual facilities and amenities areconventionally assessed by considering their “optimal”spatial requirements in isolation of each other. Thisleads to a number of problems. For example,formulating space standards in isolation restricts thepotential of resource sharing and multi-functional useto reduce land requirements. In conditions of resourcescarcity this is essential - in cases where neither thelocal authority nor the relevant governmentdepartment can afford to develop the plannedfacilities or maintain public open spaces, land remainsvacant and unattended.

Planning, space and engineeringconsiderations

In the absence of detailed information regardingutility performance standards, Table 5.7.1 providesrough guidelines on location, time and distance, sizeand dimensions and user threshold standards. Whenused in conjunction with user threshold standards, theset of time and distance standards can act asbenchmarks to check the accessibility of utilitylocations. For these utility points, which are accessedprimarily by pedestrians, the standards assume anaverage walking speed of 3 km/h, or 50 m/min.

Depending on the supporting threshold population,some facilities should be sited in locations accessible topedestrians, while others should be sited in locationsaccessible to public-transport users, as well as to alimited number of pedestrians in the local area. Timeand distance standards are therefore more applicableto lower-order, pedestrian-orientated facilities - thelocations of higher order facilities are determinedmore by the public transport system, or by other

reasons for the public to gather, than by time anddistance ranges.

Upgrades, operation and maintenance,links, and detailed design

Provision for upgrading

• The assumption up to now is that public waterstandpipes (for example) are needed becausethe residential stands do not have their ownstandpipes, or that these are over-used (e.g.several families on each stand, sharing one tap).In another example, there has been theassumption that postal delivery boxes areneeded because there is no door-to-doordelivery service. This situation may change ifthe services are upgraded - the need forcollective utility points would reduce to theextent that each household now received aservice at its door or to its site. The designguidelines for these higher levels of service maybe found in Chapter 6 onwards (the postalservice is not addressed).

• The conversion of collective to on-sitehousehold services should take place throughincremental in-situ upgrading projects as thecommunity circumstances improve. The needfor communal toilets, ablution facilities, laundrycentres and standpipes placed at walkabledistances from houses would fall away as on-site (residential) services are provided. Thepublic spaces on which these stand could thenbe rezoned for residential, business orinstitutional purposes. The prevailingcircumstances would dictate.

• With respect to piped services, the design of thelink mains, trunk mains and the pipe networkfor formal townships should allow forupgrading to individual site connections,leading directly to greatly increased waterdemand in the future. This design philosophy,together with the phased construction/provisionof water mains and pipelines only alongimportant movement routes and to collectivewater utility points, will provide ample capacityto satisfy the peak demand at the publicstandpipes.

• The design approach of pipe networks forinformal settlements should take cognisance ofthe permanent or temporary nature of thesettlement, and the final layout if thesettlement is to be upgraded. If a settlement istemporary, the pipe network should bedesigned to satisfy the minimum (RDP 1994)levels for walking distances and consumption.

7



Collective waterstandpipes

• Collectivestandpipes areplanned atpositions inresidential areasto satisfy theminimum servicelevels, but shouldalso be informedby communityneeds.

• For maintenanceconsiderations itmight bepreferable toplace collectivestandpipes onprivateresidential sites(maintenanceresponsibility onowner - seeChapter 9).

• Alternatively, thestandpipes couldbe constructedon public openspace adjacent toa residential sitewhose ownerwould take onthe maintenancetask.

• In denselypopulated areasa maximumdistance of 100m and a walkingtime of twominutes arepreferable.

• In more sparselypopulated areas,a walkingdistance of 250m (DWAF 1994,p 15) should notbe exceeded.

• Water standpipeand structureshould becustomised tosuit thecommunityneeds.

• Considerationsincludeacceptable liftingheights, animalwatering,whethercontainers arewashed atstandpipes,whetherhosepipes areused to fillnarrow-mouthedcontainers, needfor bulk filling,etc..

• Considerprovision ofseating or atleast an area forqueuing orwaiting (the areaaround thestandpipes isoften used forsocialising).

• In denselypopulated areasa norm of 15-25dwelling unitsper standpipe isacceptable.

Table 5.7.1: Quantitative guidelines for lower-order public collective utility points

UTILITY LOCATION ACCESS SIZE AND USE CAPACITIES AND DIMENSIONS THRESHOLDS

8



Table 5.7.1: Quantitative guidelines for lower-order public collective utility points(continued)

Communal bathhouses

• Sites shouldprimarily bechosen forconvenience ofaccess to theircatchment areain terms ofpotential users.

• Siting shouldtake account ofadaptation andre-use, andwhetherimproved utilitiesshould beprovided toresidential sites(e.g. conversionto change roomsfor sportsfields).

• Securityconsiderations areextremelyimportant (seeSub-chapter 5.8.1on EnvironmentalDesign For SaferCommunities).

• Walking distanceand time of 200 m and fourminutesrespectively.

• Bath housesrequire sites withareas in theorder of 200-300 m2.

• Public bathhouses couldhave showersand laundryfacilities, andalso toilets. Thelaundry basinscould beprovided insideor outside.

• These can bebuilt as part ofthe samestructure as, butwith a separateentrance from,other publicbuildings, so asto sharesupervisory staff.

• A waiting areacan be providedunder a lean-tooutside ratherthan inside thebuilding.

• One communalbath house couldservice amaximum of 50dwelling units or280 people.


9




Communal toilets • Sites shouldprimarily bechosen forconvenience ofaccess to theircatchment areain terms ofpotential users.

• Sites on whichcommunaltoilets areplaced could beconverted toresidential orbusiness siteswhen upgradingof utilities takesplace.

• Where possiblethey should belocated next tofacilities likeschools, clinicsand libraries, sothat when (if)individualisedsanitation isprovided, theycan simply beincorporatedinto the publicfacilities. In thisway redundantservice provisioncan be avoided.

• Walkingdistance andtime of 75 mand 1,5 minutesrespectively.

• Varioussanitationtechnologies aredescribed inChapter 10. Thefactors whichinfluence thechoice of eachof the particularsanitationsystems aredetailed.

• Subject to theconstraintsinfluencing thechoice, most, ifnot all, of thesesanitationsystems can beused forcommunaltoilets.

• If residentialsites do not havetheir owntoilets, it isproposed that areasonable levelof conveniencefor the users ofpublic toilets canbe attained ifthe ratio is amaximum oftwo households(12 people) pertoilet.

• If the communaltoilets aresupplementaryto toilets onresidential sites,their numbercan be reducedaccordingly.


10



Sources of information: WHO 1979; CSIR 1994; Behrens and Watson 1996; Kerr 1989; Kerr 1990; Ninham Shand1997; various personal communications)


Solid-wastecollection points

• Sites shouldprimarily bechosen forconvenience ofaccess to theircatchment areain terms ofpotential users.

• Small containerscan be placed onsidewalks,whereas largerskips requirelarger sites.(See alsoChapter 11)

• Walkingdistance andtime of 100 mand two minutesrespectively(skip).

• Hard-standingareas need ± 24 m2 for thetrucks loadingand off-loadingthe containers.

• Size ofcontainers varyfrom 85 l to6 m3 capacity

• Smallercontainers (upto 210 lcontainer) aremounted on anaxle/pivot shaftmounted on twosupportingpillars toprevent dogsoverturningthem.

• A maximum of100-150dwelling unitsshould beserviced by onesolid-wastecollection point(skip).

• Average solidwaste generatedby low-incomeurbanhouseholds is0,2 m3/capita/year at anaverage densityof 300 kg/m3 -and for middle-incomehouseholds0,75 m3/ capita/year withdensity of 215 kg/m3.

• Example: If low-incomehouseholds(average of 5,6persons/household)generate 22 lper week (1,12 m3/year),the number ofhouseholdsserved by acontainerserviced weeklywould be:- 4 per 85 l

container- 9 per 210 l

container- 270 per 6 m3

container(skip).

(See also Chapter 11)


11



Sources of information: WHO 1979; CSIR 1994; Behrens and Watson 1996; Kerr 1989; Kerr 1990; Ninham Shand1997; various person communications)


Public telephones • Need to behighly visibleand accessible tothe populationserved.

• Should belocated alongactivity routeswithin easywalkingdistance.

• Walkingdistance of200 m.

• Telkom SA provides public telephonesafter a needs analysis and projectedfuture demand exercise has been doneto confirm the viability of the specificinstallation.

Postal collectionand delivery points

• Preferable tohave smallerpostal collectionand deliverypoints evenlyspacedthroughout theresidential area.

• Need to behighly visibleand accessible tothe populationserviced.

• Should belocated alongactivity routeswithin easywalkingdistance.

• Walkingdistance andtime ofrespectively 250 m and fiveminutes.

• Appropriatedimension of a50 box structureis 0,6 m wide x0,9 m long onplan.

• Pillar-type postboxes areusually providedfor postingletters, butparcels, insuredmail, etc, needto be handed ina post offices(see Sub-chapter5.5, Table 5.5.7).

• One postcollection point(one collection/delivery box persubscriber) couldserve 200-1000dwelling units.


12



• The opportunities for upgrading thetechnology of sanitation, in the form ofdescriptions of each of the sanitationalternatives, are dealt with in Chapter 10.Should the upgrade be to toilets on eachresidential site, the need for public toilets willfall away and the site on which these have beenerected can be transferred to privateownership.

• As informal areas are upgraded and developedinto formal settlements, the transportable postbox structures can “move” with the users andcan be made a permanent structure.

• The upgrading of refuse collection services, tocollection from the sidewalk outside individualsites, would make redundant the facilitiesprovided at solid-waste collection points. Thesecould either be relocated to other areas still inneed of such facilities, or removed, and theservice would cease.

Operation and maintenance

Correct operation and maintenance, to enable theutility to provide at all times at least a minimumlevel of the intended service, is extremelyimportant. However, the operation andmaintenance of the collective utility point canoften be a problem.

To reduce the incidence of utilities being out ofaction, and hence reduce construction, operationand maintenance costs, as well as inconvenience tousers, public participation should attempt toensure “ownership” and identified responsibility ofindividuals or households for the operation,maintenance and cleaning of the utility that theywill directly depend upon. The likely effectivenesswill be increased if training of local inhabitants inthe operation and maintenance of the utilityaccompanies the infrastructure development.Conversely, design of the utility should takecognisance of the capacity and resources of localinhabitants to facilitate this local operation andmaintenance. With respect to operation andmaintenance, there are thus two issues:

• it must be established who is to be responsible;and

• design the components for easy operation andmaintenance.

Even more important than training in maintenanceof the collective utility point, because it mustinvolve all users, must be training in the use of thearea. It must be inculcated that good operationalpractices and maintenance are the responsibility ofeveryone who comes to the utility point. Thus

everybody must see it as their duty to (forexample):

• turn taps off after use;

• clean up the area - remove rubbish;

• remove sediment from the standpipe apron,and ensure that the outlet to the soakaway isunblocked at all times; and

• notice when taps are dripping even afterhaving been turned off, and to notify (and toknow whom to notify) those responsible forroutine maintenance, so that they can replacethe washer or other faulty component.

Despite all precautions, however, problemsfrequently arise in practice. A periodically out-of-order collective utility can lead to the users callingfor its replacement by an on-site service, whetherthis option is affordable or not, or undesirable forany other reason. This is despite there beingnothing intrinsically unacceptable about the levelof service provided by the collective point, but itsoperational record has given it (and, often, othercollective utilities) a bad reputation.

Personal safety is an important issue in respect ofsome collective utility points, especially bathhouses and communal toilets. There are manyreported instances of users feeling unsafe at theutility point and/or on the walk there and back. Itis because users have been attacked (the bathhouses even became the hiding places of criminals)that some of the few bath houses of the past weredemolished (Huchzermeyer 1996, pp 26, 27) (SeeSub-chapter 5.8.3).

Link infrastructure

For load capacities of link infrastructure, theappropriate chapters from Chapter 6 onwardsshould be referred to.

Detailed design

The detailed design of collective utility points isbeyond the scope of these guidelines. (Refer, forexample, to Ninham Shand (1997), for a recentdiscussion of more detailed issues on collectivewater points.)

Collective utility points primarily servinghigher-order collective utility points

Design considerations

Opportunities for trading, small-scale manufacturing,repairs and servicing, and other economic activitiesexist at places where large numbers of people

13



gather or through which large numbers ofpedestrians move.

Reference in this section is thus to guidelines forcollective utility points primarily serving publicgathering places such as at modal interchanges,bus and taxi ranks, areas of high-volume pedestriantraffic (inner city), major vehicle-entry points toresidential areas, along major pedestrian routes torailway stations, etc, public markets or communitycentres. These utility points are, often, also usedon the way to or from home or to (in addition topatronising the utility point) work, school,recreation, shopping or other destination(s).

Design decisions regarding these relate mainly to

• planning considerations, particularly thelocation of one component relative to another(e.g. high-use utilities at a rail station should beas close as possible to the main pedestrian routebetween the platform exit and the taxi rank);

• space standards, particularly related to thenumbers of users at any one time, and thedistribution of use through the day andthrough the week;

• engineering considerations;

• provision for upgrading;

• operation and maintenance; and

• link infrastructure.

Whereas the guidelines of the previous sectionswould obviously not be of value in determining thelocation of collective utility points at publicgathering places, they are of value in determiningthe number of each at the various gatheringplaces.

The forms and functions of public gathering placeswill vary enormously from one location to another,and each resultant physical form of the collectivefacility must vary accordingly.

In the planning of new local mixed-use areas,provision should be made for space for sites fortrading, but nothing should be designed and builtuntil trading has begun on the site and potentialshoppers are living in the vicinity.

With respect to the planning of space for and thedesign of utilities, there are major differencesbetween public gathering places, including tradingcentres, in outlying settlements and those in themore established parts of the city, including theinner city. The inner city collective utility need ismostly for management of what is already there,

and its upgrading, whereas in outlying settlementsthe need is to facilitate economic development.

Engineering considerations for the inner city andoutlying areas are also different. The extensivepresence of underground services below sidewalks,which calls for care in the excavation offoundations for stalls, is one example. The outlyingareas, on the other hand, are often withoutengineering services. There is often thus a need tobring utilities to the outlying market areas but insuch a way that these also cater for local residents.In another example, there are space constraints inthe inner city - thus it might not be acceptable toplace a refuse skip on a sidewalk in the inner city.

The planning of the market areas, taxi and busranks, public toilets, access for service andemergency vehicles, pedestrian routes andcirculation areas lies within the field of urbandesign and architectural disciplines. In existingtrading areas, railway stations, bus and taxi ranks,information can be gathered by means of vehicleand pedestrian movement counts, which will assistin the planning process.

Planning, space and engineeringconsiderations

Utilities for the public gathering places must bedesigned in accordance with the engineeringguidelines contained in Chapter 6 onwards. Totake public toilets in modal interchanges areas asan example, provision of these should be linked tothe number of people passing through, gatheringor trading, etc. Thus large pedestrian standsrequire more utilities. For information ondetermining the numbers of toilets, SABS 400:1990is of value.

Small-scale manufacturing, repair services andcooking activities require electricity (or otheralternative energy sources). Electricity supply canbe provided through pre-paid card or code-operated dispensers, which are mounted undercover in lock-up stalls hired by the entrepreneurs.

In other respects, the comments in Table 5.7.1 applyhere as well.

Provision for upgrading, operation andmaintenance, links, and detailed design

Certain facilities/services fulfil a need of thecommunity even as the opportunities forimprovement present themselves. Markets wouldalways be a need, if the locality generates incomefor the beneficiaries. Similarly, sanitation facilitiesat public open spaces or taxi ranks would notnecessarily fall into disuse were there upgrading orimproved circumstances for the community.

14



In other respects, the comments of the previoussection under the same heading apply here as well.

THE GUIDELINES - A CAUTIONARYREMARK

Much of the preceding, it has to be admitted, is tosome or other extent “unproven”. With fewexceptions, each provision of collective utility points inSouth Africa has tended to share one or more of thefollowing characteristics:

• provision as an ad hoc reaction by the authoritiesto a land invasion, or gradual overcrowding of asettlement (and overloading of existing services) -as a stopgap which is not improved upon until thenext health scare, bout of political unrest, orpopulation influx;

• as a single-utility provision (e.g. collective water inone place, collective sanitation elsewhere, andpostal delivery in a third place), with no attemptbeing made to co-ordinate provision for thegreater convenience of the users; and

• a few years after construction, the utility is poorlymaintained, vandalised, and/or abused - and oftenas a consequence avoided by those who, it hadbeen planned, would use the utility.

The last couple of years has seen a dramatic increase inthe number of attempts to provide collective utilities inthe manner described in this sub-chapter, and in theeffort and skill devoted to these attempts. This isespecially in respect of those places where largenumbers of people gather every day (the modalinterchange with informal market, for example). Everysituation is so very different from any other that designguidelines must necessarily be broad. These situationaldifferences arise in terms of size, in-town or suburbanor outlying area location, type and intensity of activity,history, socio-economic groups using the place,presence (or absence) and state of existing utilities, andjuxtaposition of magnets (the markets, public transportboarding points, office or shop destinations, etc).

It should, however, be noted that, understandably inthe current situation of financially-strapped localauthorities (who are usually the developers of thesecollective utilities), the available resources have had tobe given to the worst situations, which usually hasmeant those affecting the largest numbers of users.Thus the projects available for study, whether projectsbeing planned or already built, are generally at placeswhere large numbers of people gather each day

• to break their commuting journey (i.e. interchangebetween some combination of walk-taxi-bus-train

(less frequently, car or truck; even less frequently,cycle));

• to shop; or

• (often) to do both.

Even in respect of these public-gathering types of use,the available effort is thus going mostly into situationswith the largest concentrations of people, rather thaninto the planning and design of collective utility pointsto serve smaller-scale taxi stops or trading areas.

Very little of the current effort is going into higher-order collective utility points designed for use byresidents of the immediate vicinity. Even theManenberg bath house, built to cater for adevelopment where the houses were initially notfitted with hot water cylinders, is one of the fewexceptions (and it is more than ten years old).

Thus many of the collective utility points presentlybeing designed (certainly, almost all of those abovethe lowest order) are for the upgrading of alreadyplanned situations. Already planned in this contextincludes

• existing situations where pressure of users, andoften the congested and polluted circumstancesthat have arisen, have to be addressed urgently;and

• situations in townships already built and settled,which may not yet have become problems, but arein an early stage of growth and obviously need tohave collective utilities provided before unhygienicor otherwise undesirable circumstances arise.

CONCLUSION

Extensive enquiries failed to find in a single example inSouth Africa the application of most, let alone all, ofthe principles set out in these guidelines - which is notin the least surprising. One of the purposes of thisdocument is to modify key aspects of the planningphilosophy that has governed the development of ourcities - especially to free them from rigid adherence toconcepts of the inward-looking neighbourhood unitand from a road hierarchy that is unfriendly to publictransport.

Thus no suitable examples were found of planninglayouts that specifically allowed for collective utilitypoints, accommodating multiple utilities in a designedrelationship with public transport (especially taxis),informal marketing and the nearby residential area.Such forms of development have never before beenadvocated by the authorities - and, if they have been

built at all, have not been built and operated for longenough for lessons to be learnt. All stakeholders areunfamiliar with the concept - land-owners, residents,taxi associations, informal traders and professionalsalike. If there are existing situations that are nowbeing replanned with some of this sub-chapter’sprinciples in mind, they are each unique experimentsnot just in planning and engineering design, but alsoin processes of social understanding, small businessdevelopment, negotiation and, not least, politicaldynamics.

Even the examples found of collective utility pointswithin residential areas are inadequate in that nonewere designed as multi-utility clusters. All areprimarily single-purpose, with some other usesperhaps added as an afterthought. Their locations are

often not satisfactory, even for that single purpose.Their integration into the needs of the communitythey serve, and especially their surveillance by thatcommunity (let alone their operation andmaintenance - if any - by that community) have notbeen thought through.

Nevertheless, despite the untried nature of much ofthe planning and engineering philosophy underlyingthis sub-chapter, the shortage of touchable casestudies, and the fact that the jury is still out on nearlyall of them, it is believed that this sub-chapter is asignificant step forward in a desirable planningdirection, to the great advantage of the users(residents, taxi drivers and passengers, traders andothers) that will have the convenience of collectiveutilities.

15



16



BIBLIOGRAPHY

African National Congress (ANC) (1994). TheReconstruction and Development Programme.Umanyano, Johannesburg.

Bartone, C et al (1994). Toward environmentalstrategies for cities. Urban Management ProgrammeReport No. 18. UNCHS (Habitat) / The World Bank /UNDP. Washington.

Behrens, R and Watson, V (1996). Making urbanplaces: principles and guidelines for layout planning.Urban Problems Research Unit, University of CapeTown.

Cairncross, S and Feachem, R G (1993). Environmentalhealth engineering in the tropics. (2nd ed.) JohnWiley, Chichester.

City of Cape Town (1996). Nyanga Station precinctdevelopment framework. Report by City Planner’sDepartment to Urban Planning Committee. 22November.

City of Cape Town (1997). Nyanga Station precinctdevelopment: Urban, landscaping and architecturaldesign brief. Draft: City Planner’s Department.

CSIR (1994). Guidelines for the provision ofengineering services and amenities in residentialtownship development. Revised edition, NationalHousing Board. Pretoria.

Development Bank of Southern Africa (1993a). Socio-economic enhancement of development projects.Construction and development series: No. 1. DBSA.Midrand.

Development Bank of Southern Africa (1993b).Interim guidelines for labour-based constructionprojects. Construction and development series: No. 2.DBSA. Midrand.

Feachem, R G, Bradley, D J, Garelick, H and Mara, D D(1983). Sanitation and disease: Health aspects ofexcreta and wastewater management. Published forthe World Bank. John Wiley. Washington DC.

Genthe, B and Seager, J (1997). The effect of watersupply, handling and usage on water quality inrelation to health indices in developing communities.Water Research Commission Report Nr. 562/1/96.Water Commission. Pretoria.

Greater Johannesburg Transitional MetropolitanCouncil (1997). Greater Johannesburg economicdevelopment study tour of Cape Town, Port Elizabethand Durban. GJTMC. Johannesburg.

Greater Johannesburg Transitional MetropolitanCouncil, Southern MLC (1997a). Development andmanagement of street trading markets: A proceduralguide for the Southern Metropolitan Local Council.Southern MLC. Johannesburg.

Greater Johannesburg Transitional MetropolitanCouncil, Southern MLC (1997b). Informal tradingprojects within the outlying areas and the informalsettlements 97/98. Local Economic DevelopmentDepartment. Southern MLC. Johannesburg.

Huchzermeyer, M (1994). Public obligation versusindividual liberty: Considerations in the provision ofliving environments for the lowest income sector onwell-located land in Cape Town, with reference to theWingfield site. Project report for Master’s Degree inCity Planning and Urban Development, University ofCape Town, October.

Huchzermeyer, M (1996). Nyanga: Interviewing ofresidents and roleplayers. Project report for ODA.Draft, May.

Kalbermatten, J M, Julius, D S and Gunnerson, C G(1980a). Appropriate technology for water supply andsanitation. Vol 1: Technical and economic options.World Bank. Washington DC.

Keep South Africa clean organisation (1997). One mancontract.

Kerr, C (Ed) (1989). Community water development.Intermediate Technology Publications. London.

Kerr, C (Ed) (1990). Community health and sanitation.Intermediate Technology Publications. London.

Mayet, M A G (1994). Domestic waste generation inthe urban core of the DFR. MSc dissertation, Universityof Natal.

Milne, C (1994). Guidelines for emerging contractordevelopment. Construction and development series:No. 5. DBSA. Midrand.

Ninham Shand (1997): Design of water delivery toreduce health risks. Report for NaSCO of DWAF. Draft.October 1997.

Ninham Shand (1998). Appropriate guidelines on theplanning and design of collective public utility systems,as a planned element of settlement systems.Unpublished report prepared for the CSIR, Pretoria.

Okun, D A and Ernst, W R (1987). Community pipedwater supply systems in developing countries: Aplanning manual. World Bank Technical Paper No. 60.World Bank, Washington DC.

Palmer Development Group (1996). Evaluation of solidwaste practice in developing urban areas of SouthAfrica. WRC report No. 629/1/96. Pretoria.

SABS 400:1990. Code of practice for the application ofthe National Building Regulations. South AfricanBureau of Standards, Pretoria.

South Africa, Department of ConstitutionalDevelopment (1997). Municipal service options: aguideline for local authorities. Government Printers.Pretoria.

South Africa, Department of Water Affairs (1994).Water supply and sanitation policy: White Paper:Water - an indivisible national asset. GovernmentPrinter. Cape Town.

South Africa, Department of Water Affairs (1996).White Paper: National sanitation policy. NationalSanitation Task Team. Draft. Government Printer.Pretoria.

South Africa: Department of Water Affairs (1997).White Paper on a national water policy for SouthAfrica. Government Printer. Pretoria.

Sulabh International Social Service Organisation (nd).Sulabh public toilets and bath complexes. New Delhi.

Wates Meiring and Barnard (1997). Report on wastegeneration sub-project. Report to Department ofWater Affairs, No. 3064/1505/4/S. Pretoria.

Wegelin-Schuringa, M and Kodo, T (1997). Tenancyand sanitation provision in informal settlements inNairobi: Revisiting the public latrine option.Environment and urbanisation. October, pp 181-190.

WHO International Reference Centre for CommunityWater Supply (1979). Public standpost water supplies -a design manual. Technical paper 14. The Hague,December.

17



18



Documents

Public utilities - CSIR · 2018-10-30 · PUBLIC UTILITIES The purpose of this sub-chapter is to describe guidelines for the planning of public utilities. Utilities are, for the purposes